Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:17:57 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] objtool: Add support for return trampoline call
Message-ID: <20200403151757.lhhia7pzqptvlqz5@treble>
References: <20200402082220.808-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <20200402082220.808-5-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <c0f265ed-c86b-d3f1-3894-941c25e42d0e@redhat.com>
 <fc224792-bd1c-08ff-072f-e584740521b4@oracle.com>
 <a250f29d-969a-b704-6dd6-c6cc7b84f526@redhat.com>
 <20200402154022.GG20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <bc3a31dc-9d59-5756-aad3-187533f05654@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bc3a31dc-9d59-5756-aad3-187533f05654@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:11:55AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/2/20 4:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 04:31:05PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > My understanding is that once you find an intra-function call, either you
> > > hit a return, ending the branch, so the return should undo the modification
> > > the intra-function call did (whether is it a retpoline return or not).
> > > Otherwise, the intra-function call branch will need to reach an end in some
> > > way (e.g. hitting a CONTEXT_SWITCH instruction, calling a
> > > dead_end_function).
> > > 
> > > Am I missing something?
> > 
> > The thing is basically doing:
> > 
> > 	mov  $n, cx
> > 1:	call 2f
> > 2:	dec  cx
> > 	jnz  1b
> > 	add  8*n, sp
> > 
> > So it does N calls to self, then subtracts N words from the stack.
> > 
> > The reason being that the CPU has a return-stack-buffer for predicting
> > returns, and call/ret being naturally paired, that works. The above
> > is a software flush of the RSB.
> > 
> 
> Ah, lovely... Maybe that's where SAVE/RESTORE unwind hints could be nice ;)
> .
> 
> Otherwise, I don't really have a good suggestion for this...

Peter, I think my previous idea for UNWIND_HINT_ADJUST stack_add=8 would
work here?

-- 
Josh